https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEh
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEh
On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEh >>Price is a bit steep for a 0.5m observatory class instrument but then it
is a Maksutov so a hell of a lot of glass has to be ground to make one.
He now states on the listing and his website ships worldwide but does
not ship to UK.
WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
More Chicom launches with new spy satellites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGtnvlQoyaw
It says that because you're seeing it from the UK. From here it says
he doesn't ship to the U.S. Indeed, look at the exclusions after
"worldwide" and he basically doesn't ship anywhere. Not even to
Germany, where the telescope is located!
Ok folks, this thread has gone into "hot topics" that are not allowed for discussion here.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:CDK for $34,000 or a 0.7 m CDK on a computerized fork mount for
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEhPrice is a bit steep for a 0.5m observatory class instrument but then it
is a Maksutov so a hell of a lot of glass has to be ground to make one. Yeah, pretty hard to justify when you can get a new 0.5 m PlaneWave
$195,000 (both with guarantees, support, and service).
He now states on the listing and his website ships worldwide but doesIt says that because you're seeing it from the UK. From here it says
not ship to UK.
he doesn't ship to the U.S. Indeed, look at the exclusions after
"worldwide" and he basically doesn't ship anywhere. Not even to
Germany, where the telescope is located!
Ok folks, this thread has gone into "hot topics" that are not allowed for discussion here.
Check this out then!
https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=1127&acctid=9002
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 9:01:49 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Check this out then!
https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=1127&acctid=9002That is potentially quite a bargain, to someone who is able to go to where the telescope is located and haul it away.
John Savard
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 9:01:49 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Check this out then!
https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=1127&acctid=9002That is potentially quite a bargain, to someone who is able to go to where the telescope is located and haul it away.
John Savard
WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Another successful launch of a Falcon 9; WAY TO GO SPACE X!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3D2SVeag4I
On Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 16:11:40 UTC-5, fred k. engels® > wrote:
WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!Ferrying crap to the odious ISS unproductive money-pit, putting satellites into orbit that ruin astronomy, "space tourism for rich people." Who cares what happens with Space-X rockets?
Another successful launch of a Falcon 9; WAY TO GO SPACE X!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3D2SVeag4I
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:27:57 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 16:11:40 UTC-5, fred k. engels® > wrote:I think, you missed my post from a few days ago?
WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!Ferrying crap to the odious ISS unproductive money-pit, putting satellites into orbit that ruin astronomy, "space tourism for rich people." Who cares what happens with Space-X rockets?
Another successful launch of a Falcon 9; WAY TO GO SPACE X!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3D2SVeag4I
https://bigthink.com/the-future/spinlaunch-company-hurls-satellites-into-space-using-giant-spinning-machine/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1638803131
On Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 09:14:10 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 9:01:49 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Check this out then!That is potentially quite a bargain, to someone who is able to go to where >> the telescope is located and haul it away.
https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=1127&acctid=9002
John Savard
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3 wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift
would probably not have much bother moving it around.
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:34:16 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3
wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift
would probably not have much bother moving it around.
The telescope, mount and parts thereof would need to be physically small enough to fit through the doors, stairwells, elevators and hallways that lead to the outside. That could be why they suggested using a crane.
Once you got it home, you could very well have difficulties making adjustments in the mount if your latitude is different from that of its current location.
For what this bargain would really cost, I would rather go for a Dob of larger size, shorter f-ratio.
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:23:18 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:34:16 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3
wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift
would probably not have much bother moving it around.
The telescope, mount and parts thereof would need to be physically small enough to fit through the doors, stairwells, elevators and hallways that lead to the outside. That could be why they suggested using a crane.
Once you got it home, you could very well have difficulties making adjustments in the mount if your latitude is different from that of its current location.
For what this bargain would really cost, I would rather go for a Dob of larger size, shorter f-ratio.Apples and organges. This is an imaging system. A Dob is for people
who want to look through an eyepiece.
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:23:18 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:34:16 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:Apples and organges. This is an imaging system. A Dob is for people
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3
wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift >> >> would probably not have much bother moving it around.
The telescope, mount and parts thereof would need to be physically small enough to fit through the doors, stairwells, elevators and hallways that lead to the outside. That could be why they suggested using a crane.
Once you got it home, you could very well have difficulties making adjustments in the mount if your latitude is different from that of its current location.
For what this bargain would really cost, I would rather go for a Dob of larger size, shorter f-ratio.
who want to look through an eyepiece.
It is possible to have an "imaging system" and a Dob. The Model 131 is a telescope, not an "imaging system."
It is a telescope designed for imaging. A dob is not.
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 9:30:27 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
It is a telescope designed for imaging. A dob is not.
It has an equatorial mount, that makes it more useful for imaging.
And given its large aperture, it may be that the telescope is too large
for convenient visual use. In the photos, it's certainly fitted with >equipment for imaging.
Thus, an ordinary Dobsonian isn't strictly comparable; if you
want a telescope suitable to long-duration exposures for
astrophotography, this one is better.
But unless it's one of those Cassegrains with a very large
central obstruction, it isn't useless for visual observation,
I would suspect. The real issue for an amateur would be its
weight, as portability is important if you want to take the
telescope with you to a dark sky site. It's useful to an
amateur who happens to live on a farm or an acreage.
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:34:16 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3
wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift
would probably not have much bother moving it around.
The telescope, mount and parts thereof would need to be physically small enough to fit through the doors, stairwells, elevators and hallways that lead to the outside. That could be why they suggested using a crane.
Once you got it home, you could very well have difficulties making adjustments in the mount if your latitude is different from that of its current location.
For what this bargain would really cost, I would rather go for a Dob of larger size, shorter f-ratio.
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:58:05 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:23:18 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:34:16 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:Apples and organges. This is an imaging system. A Dob is for people
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3 >> >> wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift >> >> would probably not have much bother moving it around.
The telescope, mount and parts thereof would need to be physically small enough to fit through the doors, stairwells, elevators and hallways that lead to the outside. That could be why they suggested using a crane.
Once you got it home, you could very well have difficulties making adjustments in the mount if your latitude is different from that of its current location.
For what this bargain would really cost, I would rather go for a Dob of larger size, shorter f-ratio.
who want to look through an eyepiece.
It is possible to have an "imaging system" and a Dob. The Model 131 is a telescope, not an "imaging system."It is a telescope designed for imaging. A dob is not.
On 10/12/2021 14:23, W wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:34:16 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3
wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift
would probably not have much bother moving it around.
The telescope, mount and parts thereof would need to be physically small enough to fit through the doors, stairwells, elevators and hallways that lead to the outside. That could be why they suggested using a crane.It would be a strange building where the doorways were narrower than
30". The OTA would be the only part that might be pushing the size
boundaries but I would hazard a guess it is around 26" diameter all up.
The counterweights and base will be *very* heavy but a bit smaller.
Once you got it home, you could very well have difficulties making adjustments in the mount if your latitude is different from that of its current location.Not really. You put it on a cast slab of concrete with a very solid
wedge on top to shift the axis if you need to. It is probably good for
+/-2 degrees adjustment from the location it was originally installed.
There is usually some provision for exactly aligning the polar axis
after the thing is on site and installed.
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:53:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:
Check this out then!
https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=1127&acctid=9002
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:01:49 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:53:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:
Check this out then!
https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=1127&acctid=9002Check THIS out: https://optcorp.com/products/planewave-cdk600-6-meter-telescope-system
Now, who could be so foolish as to order this telescope, and not get the "polishing cloth" to go with it?
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:30:27 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:58:05 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:23:18 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>It is a telescope designed for imaging. A dob is not.
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:34:16 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:Apples and organges. This is an imaging system. A Dob is for people
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3 >> >> >> wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift
would probably not have much bother moving it around.
The telescope, mount and parts thereof would need to be physically small enough to fit through the doors, stairwells, elevators and hallways that lead to the outside. That could be why they suggested using a crane.
Once you got it home, you could very well have difficulties making adjustments in the mount if your latitude is different from that of its current location.
For what this bargain would really cost, I would rather go for a Dob of larger size, shorter f-ratio.
who want to look through an eyepiece.
It is possible to have an "imaging system" and a Dob. The Model 131 is a telescope, not an "imaging system."
You completely missed the point.
One can choose between an "imaging system" and a Dob, choose neither or choose both.
The cost of buying, transporting and setting this scope up in a new location is not going to be trivial. So most people will find a better way to spend the money and choose something more powerful or more practical.
Check THIS out: https://optcorp.com/products/planewave-cdk600-6-meter-telescope-system
Now, who could be so foolish as to order this telescope, and not get the "polishing cloth" to go with it?
On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 07:06:09 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:30:27 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:58:05 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:23:18 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>It is a telescope designed for imaging. A dob is not.
wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:34:16 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote: >> >> >Apples and organges. This is an imaging system. A Dob is for people
They said it would need a crane to lift it out of the observatory, but taking it apart might be possible.It would easily split down to the OTA and the base. The OTA would
probably be a safe lift for two reasonably fit men, one guy who eats 3
wheatabix for breakfast or a block and tackle.
The base and drive might be more of a problem for weight but a forklift
would probably not have much bother moving it around.
The telescope, mount and parts thereof would need to be physically small enough to fit through the doors, stairwells, elevators and hallways that lead to the outside. That could be why they suggested using a crane.
Once you got it home, you could very well have difficulties making adjustments in the mount if your latitude is different from that of its current location.
For what this bargain would really cost, I would rather go for a Dob of larger size, shorter f-ratio.
who want to look through an eyepiece.
It is possible to have an "imaging system" and a Dob. The Model 131 is a telescope, not an "imaging system."
You completely missed the point.
One can choose between an "imaging system" and a Dob, choose neither or choose both.
The cost of buying, transporting and setting this scope up in a new location is not going to be trivial. So most people will find a better way to spend the money and choose something more powerful or more practical.No, you missed the point. But you always do.
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
Check THIS out: https://optcorp.com/products/planewave-cdk600-6-meter-telescope-system
Now, who could be so foolish as to order this telescope, and not get the "polishing cloth" to go with it?This compares favorably with a similar product offered by Apple...
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-polishing-cloth
John Savard
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:53:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Check this out then!On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:CDK for $34,000 or a 0.7 m CDK on a computerized fork mount for
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEhPrice is a bit steep for a 0.5m observatory class instrument but then it >is a Maksutov so a hell of a lot of glass has to be ground to make one. Yeah, pretty hard to justify when you can get a new 0.5 m PlaneWave
$195,000 (both with guarantees, support, and service).
He now states on the listing and his website ships worldwide but doesIt says that because you're seeing it from the UK. From here it says
not ship to UK.
he doesn't ship to the U.S. Indeed, look at the exclusions after "worldwide" and he basically doesn't ship anywhere. Not even to
Germany, where the telescope is located!
https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=1127&acctid=9002
On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 11:01:49 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:53:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Check this out then!On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:CDK for $34,000 or a 0.7 m CDK on a computerized fork mount for
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEhPrice is a bit steep for a 0.5m observatory class instrument but then it
is a Maksutov so a hell of a lot of glass has to be ground to make one. Yeah, pretty hard to justify when you can get a new 0.5 m PlaneWave
$195,000 (both with guarantees, support, and service).
He now states on the listing and his website ships worldwide but does >not ship to UK.It says that because you're seeing it from the UK. From here it says
he doesn't ship to the U.S. Indeed, look at the exclusions after "worldwide" and he basically doesn't ship anywhere. Not even to
Germany, where the telescope is located!
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:minutes to assemble in the field... and I would not trade it straight across for this thing, no way... but then, I have no intention of imaging with my telescope, since I can get umpteen thousand really nice images from the internet of virtually any
On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 11:01:49 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:53:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I dunno, I have a 25" f/5 Newtonian for about that same value, and it is a LOT more portable... and the views are fantastic when taken to a dark site... no crane required... I can load and unload it by myself from my trailer and it takes about 15 or 20Check this out then!On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:Yeah, pretty hard to justify when you can get a new 0.5 m PlaneWave CDK for $34,000 or a 0.7 m CDK on a computerized fork mount for $195,000 (both with guarantees, support, and service).
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEhPrice is a bit steep for a 0.5m observatory class instrument but then it
is a Maksutov so a hell of a lot of glass has to be ground to make one.
He now states on the listing and his website ships worldwide but does >not ship to UK.It says that because you're seeing it from the UK. From here it says he doesn't ship to the U.S. Indeed, look at the exclusions after "worldwide" and he basically doesn't ship anywhere. Not even to Germany, where the telescope is located!
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:minutes to assemble in the field... and I would not trade it straight across for this thing, no way... but then, I have no intention of imaging with my telescope, since I can get umpteen thousand really nice images from the internet of virtually any
On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 11:01:49 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:53:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin BrownCheck this out then!
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:CDK for $34,000 or a 0.7 m CDK on a computerized fork mount for
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEhPrice is a bit steep for a 0.5m observatory class instrument but then it
is a Maksutov so a hell of a lot of glass has to be ground to make one. >> > > Yeah, pretty hard to justify when you can get a new 0.5 m PlaneWave
$195,000 (both with guarantees, support, and service).
He now states on the listing and his website ships worldwide but does >> > > >not ship to UK.It says that because you're seeing it from the UK. From here it says
he doesn't ship to the U.S. Indeed, look at the exclusions after
"worldwide" and he basically doesn't ship anywhere. Not even to
Germany, where the telescope is located!
I dunno, I have a 25" f/5 Newtonian for about that same value, and it is a LOT more portable... and the views are fantastic when taken to a dark site... no crane required... I can load and unload it by myself from my trailer and it takes about 15 or 20
Almost certainly, the sort of person considering a big
observatory instrument like this isn't interested in getting a dob
instead!
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:31:02 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Almost certainly, the sort of person considering a big
observatory instrument like this isn't interested in getting a dob
instead!
With absolute certainty, you are wrong. A person interested in a "big observatory instrument" can pass on this one and buy some other telescope instead, including a large Dob.
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:31:02 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Almost certainly, the sort of person considering a big
observatory instrument like this isn't interested in getting a dob
instead!
With absolute certainty, you are wrong. A person interested in a "big observatory
instrument" can pass on this one and buy some other telescope instead,
including a large Dob.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 21:53:54 -0800 (PST), palsing <pnal...@gmail.com>20 minutes to assemble in the field... and I would not trade it straight across for this thing, no way... but then, I have no intention of imaging with my telescope, since I can get umpteen thousand really nice images from the internet of virtually any
wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 11:01:49 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:53:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:Check this out then!
On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:Yeah, pretty hard to justify when you can get a new 0.5 m PlaneWave >> > > CDK for $34,000 or a 0.7 m CDK on a computerized fork mount for
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEhPrice is a bit steep for a 0.5m observatory class instrument but then it
is a Maksutov so a hell of a lot of glass has to be ground to make one.
$195,000 (both with guarantees, support, and service).
He now states on the listing and his website ships worldwide but doesIt says that because you're seeing it from the UK. From here it says >> > > he doesn't ship to the U.S. Indeed, look at the exclusions after
not ship to UK.
"worldwide" and he basically doesn't ship anywhere. Not even to
Germany, where the telescope is located!
I dunno, I have a 25" f/5 Newtonian for about that same value, and it is a LOT more portable... and the views are fantastic when taken to a dark site... no crane required... I can load and unload it by myself from my trailer and it takes about 15 or
Of course. And I have virtually no interest in peering through
eyepieces. So a large portable scope is of little use to me. On the
other hand, a large aperture scope with a high quality tracking
mount...
On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:39:51 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:20 minutes to assemble in the field... and I would not trade it straight across for this thing, no way... but then, I have no intention of imaging with my telescope, since I can get umpteen thousand really nice images from the internet of virtually any
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 21:53:54 -0800 (PST), palsing <pnal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 11:01:49 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:53:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:44 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:Check this out then!
On 07/12/2021 16:44, RichA wrote:Yeah, pretty hard to justify when you can get a new 0.5 m PlaneWave >> >> > > CDK for $34,000 or a 0.7 m CDK on a computerized fork mount for
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/154726532372?hash=item24066b8514:g:uP4AAOSwIyxhpeEhPrice is a bit steep for a 0.5m observatory class instrument but then it
is a Maksutov so a hell of a lot of glass has to be ground to make one.
$195,000 (both with guarantees, support, and service).
He now states on the listing and his website ships worldwide but doesIt says that because you're seeing it from the UK. From here it says >> >> > > he doesn't ship to the U.S. Indeed, look at the exclusions after
not ship to UK.
"worldwide" and he basically doesn't ship anywhere. Not even to
Germany, where the telescope is located!
I dunno, I have a 25" f/5 Newtonian for about that same value, and it is a LOT more portable... and the views are fantastic when taken to a dark site... no crane required... I can load and unload it by myself from my trailer and it takes about 15 or
there is no field de-rotation capability... but then, I have virtually no interest in taking photos through this guy... he/she is strictly for visual amateur astronomy... and he/she has long lines at star-parties, your own non-interest in visual peeksOf course. And I have virtually no interest in peering through
eyepieces. So a large portable scope is of little use to me. On the
other hand, a large aperture scope with a high quality tracking
mount...
Well, Chris, my 25" does have tracking (ServoCat)... which only means that it can keep an object within the FOV for a number of hours, but not so accurately that a long-exposure picture would be successful...not to mention that with an alt-az telescope
On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:55:53 PM UTC-7, W wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:31:02 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> > Almost certainly, the sort of person considering a big
observatory instrument like this isn't interested in getting a dob
instead!
With absolute certainty, you are wrong. A person interested in a "big observatory
instrument" can pass on this one and buy some other telescope instead,
That's absolutely true.
including a large Dob.
But this part, crucial to the conclusion that he was wrong, is not so >certain. After all, a Dobsonian is, by necessity, on an alt-azimuth mount.
There _are_ computerized motorized Dobsonians out there. For long-exposure >photography, of course, anything that's alt-azimuth needs image rotation. But >given that "lucky imaging" has now basically replaced long exposures, as it >allows bypassing much of the effects of Earth's atmosphere (of course, for >anything much over 11 inches in aperture, you actually need adaptive optics >instead, but that's available too...) perhaps that's not too much of an issue either.
So, on reflection, you are correct: a Dobsonian _is_, these days, potentially >an alternative to a large equatorially-mounted instrument for nearly all purposes.
On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:55:53 PM UTC-7, W wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:31:02 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Almost certainly, the sort of person considering a big
observatory instrument like this isn't interested in getting a dob instead!
With absolute certainty, you are wrong. A person interested in a "big observatoryThat's absolutely true.
instrument" can pass on this one and buy some other telescope instead,
including a large Dob.
But this part, crucial to the conclusion that he was wrong, is not so certain. After all, a Dobsonian is, by necessity, on an alt-azimuth mount.
There _are_ computerized motorized Dobsonians out there. For long-exposure photography, of course, anything that's alt-azimuth needs image rotation. But given that "lucky imaging" has now basically replaced long exposures, as it allows bypassing much of the effects of Earth's atmosphere (of course, for anything much over 11 inches in aperture, you actually need adaptive optics instead, but that's available too...) perhaps that's not too much of an issue either.
So, on reflection, you are correct: a Dobsonian _is_, these days, potentially an alternative to a large equatorially-mounted instrument for nearly all purposes.
On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 2:55:53 PM UTC-8, W wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:31:02 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Almost certainly, the sort of person considering a big
observatory instrument like this isn't interested in getting a dob instead!
With absolute certainty, you are wrong. A person interested in a "big observatory instrument" can pass on this one and buy some other telescope instead, including a large Dob.Sure... as long as he doesn't want to image to much!
peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.
peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.
What he says about this topic is, therefore, unimportant.
On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:54:46 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.
peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.
What he says about this topic is, therefore, unimportant.Um, there's just one problem I have with this.
Since Chris Peterson was talking about "people interested in a big observatory instrument", are you saying that "a big observatory
instrument" is still possibly of interest to visual observers?
Certainly, visual observing has been done with big observatory
instruments in the past, but I'm not sure that this is how it works
for anyone buying a telescope today for personal use.
peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.
peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 06:54:43 -0800 (PST), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
peterson has gone on record as not liking visual observing.
peterson is therefore not qualified to understand or comment on the motivations of those who do like visual observing.I am as competent to understand the interests and motivations of
visual astronomers as I am boaters or racers or football fans or any
of a million other things I have little personal interest in pursuing.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 58:16:11 |
| Calls: | 6,652 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,136 |